People attend a protest outside a federal courthouse as members of the Palestinian community give oral argument in a lawsuit filed against US President Joe Biden and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (Reuters)
In a remarkable article by the most famous columnist in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, entitled: “Why are Ukraine and Gaza bigger than they think?” He tried to provide an explanation for the two most important conflicts taking place in the world today. This interpretation, like any comprehensive, comprehensive interpretation in a complex and fragmented time, suffers from reductionism and simplification. Its importance lies in two things:
First, it is one way in which our understanding of the world after the Cold War is being framed.
The second: It has already leaked to some decision-makers and educated elites in our Arab world, so it is used to mobilize behind political, intellectual and media positions. Which could have serious future repercussions.
Despite this, in the end it remains a perception that does not integrate people’s interests, reminding us of the saying: “A land without a people for a people without a land.” He views the world as a void in which there are no multiple peoples with varying aspirations and interests, and values that drive them or aspire to achieve them.
“Iran’s first priority is Iran, and we must never forget that,” says one Iran expert. “Iran will only mobilize its forces if it is hit directly.”
“There are many ways to interpret the two largest conflicts in the world today,” Mr. Friedman says, “but my shortcut is that Ukraine wants to join the West, and Israel wants to join the Arab East. Russia — with Iran’s help — is trying to stop the first conflict, and Iran and Hamas are trying to stop the second.”
He places his statement in a broader strategic context to give it a strong impetus. “It reflects a massive geopolitical struggle between two opposing networks of states and non-state actors over the values and interests that will dominate the post-Cold War world – in the wake of the era of Pax Americana/relatively stable globalization heralded by the fall of Berlin,” he says.
Friedman moves on to talk about the region and the conflict taking place there now, making it - in his words - a conflict between “the network of resistance, dedicated to preserving closed and authoritarian regimes, where the past buries the future. On the other side, there is the network of inclusion, which is trying to formulate more open, interconnected and pluralistic systems.” “Where the future buries the past.” He continues: "Whoever wins the conflicts between these two networks will determine much of the prevailing character of the post-Cold War era."
America is of course the leader of the integration network, but China's position between these two networks is important. Therefore, he does not forget to define its role, as he sees: “China under President Xi Jinping straddles the two networks, along with much of what has come to be called the Global South. Their hearts, and often their pocketbooks, are with the resistors, but their heads are with the integrationists.”
But what is the fundamental difference between the networks of resistance and inclusion or inclusion? The first - according to Friedman - is based on fighting and unity on the resistance front, and is based on hostility to Israel and the West, led by the United States.
The Inclusion Network focuses on “weaving together global and regional markets – rather than battlefronts – business conferences, news organizations, elites, hedge funds, technology incubators, and major trade routes.
He added: "It transcends traditional borders, creating a network of economic and technological interdependence that has the potential to redefine power structures and create new models for regional stability."
Why is the war on Gaza important?
This is the scene as presented to us by Friedman and the networks, relationships, and interests behind him, but let us collect some other snapshots to complete the complexity and composition of the scene:
First shot
Namibia issued a statement supporting South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, including harsh criticism of Germany's decision to intervene in defense of Israel.
Many countries in the so-called Global South see blatant hypocrisy in Europe and the United States condemning the illegal occupation in Ukraine, while continuing to strongly support Israel despite the rising death toll in Gaza and settler violence in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
South Africa raised the issue of genocide, while the United States instinctively opposed it. This stance diminished the latter's credibility among Africans, shattering the idea that Washington stood for a rules-based order.
Human Rights Watch said: It documented the crime of using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza during the siege imposed by Israel on the Strip. In its annual global report, the NGO highlighted the “double standards” of governments that have remained silent about “Israeli violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”
Second shot
The so-called "Abraham" normalization agreements brought together one of the world's largest spyware exporters with countries that are increasingly abusing cyber weapons and surveillance technologies.
This joint foray into cybersecurity will likely lead to a new wave of technology-based transnational repression in the name of national security.
Some countries have been agents of NSO Group, the Israeli cyber mercenary, for many years and used the Pegasus spyware to hack the phones and pages of journalists, activists and political opponents at home, and in exile.
Normalization of the Israeli military occupation of Palestine expanded authoritarian control regionally, by formalizing secret military and intelligence cooperation channels.
Third shot
In a recent poll conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, which included 8,000 Arabs in 16 countries, 92% of participants said; The Palestinian issue is an issue that concerns all Arabs.
Nearly 90% of participants said; They consider the October 7 attack carried out by Hamas a “legitimate resistance operation” or a “legitimate resistance operation – with some errors.”
89% of participants refused to recognize Israel, which is the highest percentage in the history of the center’s polls. Only 13% of the Arabs surveyed said; They believe that peace with Israel is still possible.
What do these three shots mean?
First: complexity and structure versus opposing simplistic dualisms
Arab public opinion’s support for the Palestinian cause does not necessarily mean supporting all positions of the so-called resistance axis - as it appears in Syria, Iraq and Yemen - nor does the aspiration of the peoples of the region to live a decent life - as the inclusion axis expresses in some of its policies - mean non-alignment with basic values, as appears in the position. from Palestine.
An expert on Iranian affairs says: “Iran’s first priority is Iran, and we must never forget that. Iran will not mobilize its forces unless it is subjected to a direct strike,” and continues: “It is important not to exaggerate in promoting Iran’s position in the region or its investments in the axis of resistance.”
The cohesion of the axis and its regional role are not just Iranian dictates. They are linked together through the common hatred of American and Israeli colonialism, but it is a hatred that extends to Arab public opinion, as shown in the data of the Arab Index.
This shared hatred does not mean approval of the policies of Iran and its allies in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and preventing navigation in the Red Sea by the Houthis does not mean support for the Palestinians in support of their positions in the Yemen war.
We live in an eclectic world. While political leaders tend to look at today’s world through the lens of competing ideological and political systems (the two camps), where they are with the West or against it, with democracy or against it, with the free world or against it, with the axis of resistance or the axis of assimilation and inclusion..., the results confirm Recent public opinion polls show that people around the world instead prefer selective arrangements, where they and their governments can feasibly choose their partners depending on the issue at hand.
We have entered an eclectic world, where you can mix and match your partners on different issues, rather than subscribing to a set list of loyalty to one side or the other.
Political action will not be effective if it is framed in opposing binaries. Bipolarity: Whoever is not with us is against us.
Second: Is the conflict between the two axes, despite the areas of overlap and common interests between them, a conflict over values, or is it based on differences in interests?
Isn't the essence of the two networks based on tyranny, and integrated markets lead to poor distribution and inequality of incomes, wealth, and opportunities? Even the recent normalization agreements were built on the alliance of capitalism and big companies, and were at the expense of ordinary citizens in the Gulf and Israel.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the world were able to creatively and strongly link their personal - and sometimes local - concerns with the Palestinian cause. One of the demonstrators in the West was asked why he went out, and he replied: “We went out for ourselves, and to reclaim our humanity.”
Public opinion across the region, the Global South, and even the West increasingly views the conflict as the result of a decades-long occupation, rather than a response to Islamist terrorism, as Friedman portrays it.
The composition of the team of lawyers in South Africa says it all: it is multi-ethnic, male, female, Irish, British, and South African. There was not an official Palestinian in the group, nor a single Arab. However, one day after the end of the hearing, massive demonstrations broke out in 45 countries, not including any Arab countries.
Is it an aspiration or search for common human values that the world may be divided into in the future? maybe.
Palestine is re-emerging as a global issue, just as it was in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Arabs and Muslims - peoples and governments - are the least contributors to it. The relationship between the struggle for Palestinian rights and the internal battle in the countries of the region for democracy and equitable distribution of wealth, incomes and opportunities may strengthen in the future.
The Arab popular position is that the Palestinians are paying the price of the regimes depriving their people of freedom and the spread of oppression among them. They are also paying the price of the exhaustion they are exposed to due to fierce neoliberal policies.
Friedman and others like him do not understand the complex relationship between the Arab peoples and the Palestinian issue. It is still their central issue and not the issue of the Palestinians alone. It is an expression of their search for their dignity at home, in the region and in the world around them. The rise of the Palestinian issue isolates Israel and the United States and increases global criticism of settler colonialism, occupation, and apartheid.
These ideas are gaining new attention, including indigenous rights, racial, environmental, distributive justice, etc. The funny thing about all this is; We are no longer facing a West or an East, nor an axis of resistance or an axis of inclusion, but rather a distribution of forces according to interests across these different geographical regions, and differences in their positioning according to each issue, in what I called the fragmentation of polarizations.
Third: Searching for the soul of the world
After the Cold War, the United States ushered in a rules-based international order reinforced by a number of international institutions that were established. The international system is now chaotic and fragmented, but with the war on the Palestinians it has become clear that the US government is abandoning the rules and values represented by international institutions.
Global interest in the Palestine issue has created two new axes: the first includes many countries and a number of non-state actors and is aligned with common human values, and the second includes a number of countries and non-state forces that believes that these values are the inherent right of a gender, race, or followers of a particular religion to the exclusion of others. .
Friedman asked the US Secretary of State at the Davos Forum held last month (January) whether the lives of Muslims and Christians are less valuable than the lives of Jews. Blinken responded, his voice cracking with emotion: “No, I think for me, and for many of us, what we see is all "A day in Gaza is painful. The suffering we see among innocent men, women and children breaks my heart." The question is: what should be done? Blinken deserves to be nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor on the International Stage.
The international community needs to build global traditions of humanitarian action, and must recognize in word and deed that all human lives have the same value, and that the killing of civilians is unacceptable wherever it occurs.
Friedman says in another article: “If you think about the three pillars that have stabilized the world since I became a journalist in 1978 – a strong America committed to protecting the liberal world order with the help of healthy multilateral institutions like NATO, and a China that is always growing there.” “To support the global economy, and the mostly stable borders in Europe and the developing world – all three pillars have been shaken by the big choices made by big players over the past decade.”
And I say; The world will not stabilize unless it summons its spirit, which is based on the fact that divine honor for human beings includes everyone and no one is excluded from it.